Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1887-12-07
THE VIRGINIA CASE.
The Supreme Courts RulInS-An Impor
ant Decision.

Inc supreme Courts RullnS-An import
ant Decision.
WASHINGTON, d. c., December G.
The Supreme Courts opinion in the Habeas
corpus cases ig as follows
After stating the case at great length and
announcing it as the settled policy of the
court to discharge upon writs Of habeas
corpus persons held for contempt in cases
where the lower court was without iuris-
diction, Justice Matthewa said, "The
question nrese ed is really whether the Cir
cult Court had jurisdiction to entertain the
suit in which the order complaint was made
because the sole purpose and prayer Of the
bin are by final decree perpetually to
enjoin the defendants from taking any
steps in the execution of the act
of May II, 1887. If the court had power
upon the case made in the record TO
entertain the aait Tor that purpose, il had
equal power as provisional remedy TO
grant the restraining the order, the viola.
tion of which consists Of the contempt ad-
judged against the petitioners The rrin.
cipal eon teniion on the part Of the peti
tiOners il that the suit, nOminally against
them, is, in fact, at law a suit against the
State of Virginia, whose officers they are,
jurisdiction to entertain which is denied
by the eleventh amendMept 20 the CoDsti-
tuition. II must ne regarded as the settled
doctrine Of this court, established by its
recent decisions, that the question whether
a suit is within the prohibition OF the
eleventh amendment is not always to be
determined by reference to the nQp!nsl
parties on the record"
The EAyEaaESTs OF THE BILL.
The substantial avermens OF the bill
are: First, that the complsipants were
the owners Of 500, 900 worth OF tax x.receiy-
able coupons OF Virginia, for which they
hsd paid over Sc, 900; second, that they
have sold $50, 600 OF that amount for $l5,-
900 OF more TO taxpayers Of Virginia, who
have rendered the same to the proper
State officials in payment OF their taxes,
hut that said officers have refused 10 re-
coiye the same; third, that If the officers Of
the State are permitted TO enforce the act
Of May II, 1887, the complainants will
he unable to sell the remaining
$50, 900 OF their coupons TO the
taxpayers Of that State at any
price, and thus their antiTe property
in the same will be destroyed; fourth, that
the act OF May II, 1887, is unoonstitution-
al and void because il impairs the obliga-
tiOn Of the contract of the State OF VIr-
giuis by which it agreed to receive cou-
pons cut from its bonds in payment Of
debts, demands and taxes due 10 it. The
particulars in which the contract 10 al
legged to be violated By the provisions Of
that act are First, that in disregard Of
tenures OF tar receivable coupons made in
payment Of taxes, tine act Of the General
Assembly peremptoIily requires actions at
law 10 be brought in the name OF The Stste
Of Virginia against all such taxpayers -
are delinquent; second, becsuse N the
! trial of such actions it u required that the
defendant shall not only prove the fact OF
tender, bst tie genuinepess Of the coupons
rendered; third, that a. part Of that proof he
is required TO produce the bond itself, from
which bond such coupons are said 70 have
been cut; and fourth, that he il not p.t.
mitted TO introduce expert testimany 10
prove the occurrences OF the coupons.
The prayer OF tie bI!l Is that the Attorney
General Of Virginia aB4 tbs Commons
wealth's attorneys foT .Ae oounties Of the
State be restrained By iojunctiC1 from
commencing and prosecuting Any suit
under the act Of May 10. 1857, for the re.
covery Of taxes against parties
ALLEGED TO De DsIIsqrKsT,
but who, in fact, have tendefed tax feeeiv
able cogpsas in payment Of tzyes due. Il
is 10 be observed that the only act on tb'
part of the petitioners sought 10 be 70
strained by the original order Of June 8
1887, is the bringing Of any suit under th'
act Of May II, 1887, against any persos
who had rendered tax-receivable eoup0aI
in payment of taxes due TO the Ststs o
Virginia. Any such sait nust, By o.
statute, bs brought in the name OF u
State aud for its use.
For a breach Of It's contract by the Stat
liz /, conceded there Is no remedy BY sol
against the State Of Virginia itself becsus
of the eleventh amendment to The Coust;
tuition, which secures to the State iEamu
nity against suit by indiriduais II athe
! States or aiier1 ThA immunity inclnde
. no, onlT direct actions for damages for tb
breach or the contract brought against tb
State By name, but all other actions an
suits against it, whether at law or i
. equity.
II canpot be doubted that the 1lth am
endment TO ths eonstitutisa spefatss Z
create an impirtant distinction betwee
can;Iaets OF State with individuals an
, tcontrsets betw4.n individual pzrtieA ]
, contracts between State and individual
by virtue Of tie 18th amendment TO th
constitution ihers bsing no remedy By
suit against tie Sats-the contract b sul
stantislly without sanction, except tn
which arises out Of the honor and got
faith Of the State itself, and these are =
subject to condition. Altherss she Sta
3 at the inception oftts contract may Ia
0 eo.sested so sssl.ct its<h t, suii, il n
. subss< Ply si,hdSax, iRzt ssae<atss